Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Drug-related problems can negatively influence treatment outcome and well-being for patients with rheumatic diseases. Thus, it is important to support patients in preventing or resolving drug-related problems as quickly as possible. To effectively develop interventions for this purpose, knowledge on the frequency and character of drug-related problems is needed. Therefore, this study aims to quantify and characterize drug-related problems reported by patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases along their treatment process. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in a Dutch outpatient pharmacy. Adult patients with rheumatic diseases that were prescribed medication by a rheumatologist were questioned about experienced DRPs by telephone 4 times in 8 weeks using a structured interview-guide. Patient-reported DRPs were scored on uniqueness (i.e., if a specific DRP was reported in multiple interviews by one individual, this was counted as one unique DRP) and were categorized using a classification for patient-reported DRPs and analysed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 52 participants (median age 68 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62-74), 52% male) completed 192 interviews with 45 (87%) participants completing all 4 interviews. The majority of patients (65%) were diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients reported a median number of 3 (IQR 2-5) unique DRPs during interview 1. In subsequent interviews, patients reported median numbers of 1 (IQR 0-2), 1 (IQR 0-2) and 0 (IQR 0-1) unique DRPs for interviews 2-4 respectively. Participants reported a median number of 5 (IQR 3-9) unique DRPs over all completed interviews. Unique patient-reported DRPs were most frequently categorized into (suspected) side effects (28%), medication management (e.g., medication administering or adherence) (26%), medication concerns (e.g., concerns regarding long-term side-effects or effectiveness) (19%) and medication effectiveness (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients wi

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatic diseases are known to experience drug-related problems at various times during their treatment. As these problems can negatively influence patients' health, they should be prevented or resolved as soon as possible, for which patients might benefit from additional support. Telehealth has the potential to continuously provide information and offers the possibility to easily contact a health care provider in order to support patients with medication use. Knowledge of factors influencing the patient's preference for telehealth channels can improve the actual use of telehealth channels. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify factors that influence the preferences of patients with rheumatic diseases regarding telehealth channels for support with medication use. METHODS: A qualitative study with face-to-face interviews was performed among patients with an inflammatory rheumatic disease in the Netherlands. A total of 4 telehealth channels were used: a frequently asked questions page, a digital human, an app for SMS text messaging with health care providers, and an app for video-calling with health care providers. Using a semistructured interview guide based on domains of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) model, participants were questioned about (1) their general opinion on the 4 telehealth channels, (2) factors influencing preference for individual telehealth channels, and (3) factors influencing preference for individual telehealth channels in relation to the other available channels. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and categorically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were interviewed (female: n=8, 53%; male: n=7, 47%; mean age 55, SD 16.8 years; median treatment duration of 41, IQR 12-106 months). The following 3 categories of factors influencing patient preference regarding telehealth channels were identified: (1) problem-related factors included problems needing a visual check, problems speci

Contains fulltext : 248988.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), AIMS: Little is known about usual care by physicians and pharmacy teams to support adherence to statins and whether the extent of this care is associated with adherence to statins. Objective of the study was to examine the relationship between the extent of adherence supporting activities of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients' adherence to statins. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 48 pharmacies and affiliated physicians' practices, between September 3, 2014 and March 20, 2015. Patients visiting the pharmacy with a statin prescription from participating prescribers were invited to participate. Usual care to support adherence was assessed among HCPs with the Quality of Standard Care questionnaire about usual care activities to support adherence. Adherence to statins was assessed among patients with the MARS-5 questionnaire. The association between the extent of HCPs' adherence supporting activities and patients' adherence was examined by means of multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: 1,504 patients and 692 HCPs (209 physicians, 118 pharmacists and 365 pharmacy technicians) participated. No association was found between the extent of physicians' adherence supporting activities and patients' adherence to statins. The extent of adherence supporting activities by pharmacy teams in usual care was negatively associated with patients' adherence to statins (B coefficient -0.057 (95%CI: -0.112- -0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is no positive relationship between the extent of HCPs' adherence supporting activities in usual care and patients' adherence to statins. Other methods than questionnaires (e.g. electronic monitors (to assess adherence) and observations (to assess usual care) should be applied to confirm the results of this study.

Radboud University, 01 juli 2022, Promotores : Bemt, B.J.F van den, Burger, D.M., Dijk, C.E.M.J. van Co-promotor : Ende, C.H.M. van den, Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 251139.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 251204.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background Personal health records have the potential to identify medication discrepancies. Although they facilitate patient empowerment and broad implementation of medication reconciliation, more medication discrepancies are identified through medication reconciliation performed by healthcare professionals. Aim We aimed to identify the factors associated with the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation in a patient's medication list based on a personal health record (used by patients) compared to medication reconciliation performed by a healthcare professional. Method Three- to 14 days prior to a planned admission to the Cardiology-, Internal Medicine- or Neurology Departments, at Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, patients were invited to update their medication file in their personal health records. At admission, medication reconciliation was performed by a pharmacy technician. Deviations were determined as differences between these medication lists. Associations between patient-, setting-, and medication-related factors, and the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention class [Formula: see text] E) were analysed. Results Of the 488 patients approached, 155 patients were included. Twenty-four clinically relevant deviations were observed. Younger patients (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.94; 95%CI:0.91-0.98), patients who used individual multi-dose packaging (aOR 14.87; 95%CI:2.02-110), and patients who used [Formula: see text] 8 different medications, were at highest risk for the occurrence of a clinically relevant deviation (sensitivity 0.71; specificity 0.62; area under the curve 0.64 95%CI:0.52-0.76). Conclusion Medication reconciliation is the preferred method to identify medication discrepancies for patients with individual multi-dose packaging, and patients who used eight or more different medications.

Item does not contain fulltext, AIMS: Personal health records (PHRs) are more often used for medication reconciliation (MR). However, patients' adoption rate is low. We aimed to provide insight into patients' barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR prior to an in- or outpatient visit. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted among PHR users and non-users who had a planned visit at the outpatient rheumatology department or the inpatient cardiology or neurology department. About 1 week after the hospital visit, patients were interviewed about barriers and facilitators for the usage of a PHR for MR using a semi-structured interview guide based on the theoretical domains framework. Afterwards, data were analysed following thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten PHR users and non-users were interviewed. Barriers and facilitators were classified in four domains: patient, application, process and context. We identified 14 barriers including limited (health) literacy and/or computer skills, practical and technical issues, ambiguity about who is responsible (the patient or the healthcare provider) and lack of data exchange and connectivity between applications. Besides that, ten facilitators were identified including being place and time independent, improve usability, target patients who benefit most and/or have sufficient skills, and integration of different applications. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators identified at the patient, application, process and context level, need to be addressed to effectively develop and implement PHRs for MR.

Contains fulltext : 230798.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 232373.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), AIMS: Adherence to statins ranges from 32% to 79%. Patients' beliefs about medication are associated with adherence. There is lack of insight into the possible association between beliefs of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) about statins and patients' beliefs and adherence. This study aims to examine whether HCPs' beliefs about statins are associated with patients' beliefs and adherence about/to statins. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 48 pharmacies and affiliated physicians' practices between 3 September 2014 and 20 March 2015. HCPs' (prescribers and pharmacy staff) and patients' beliefs about statins were assessed with the Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ) specific. Adherence to statins was assessed with the MARS-5 questionnaire. Multilevel regression analysis was performed to assess the association between HCPs' beliefs and patients' beliefs and adherence. RESULTS: 1504 patients (mean age 66.8 [s.d. ± 9.9] years, 46.5% female) and 734 HCPs (209 physicians, 118 pharmacists and 366 pharmacy technicians) participated in this study. Patients have higher BMQ necessity (16.9 [s.d. ± 4.3]) and BMQ concern (12.3 [s.d. ± 3.9]) scores than HCPs (15.0 [s.d. ± 3.0] and 11.5 [s.d. ± 2.9], P < 0.001). No associations were found between any of the HCPs' BMQ and patients' BMQ scores and adherence to statins. Patients' BMQ necessity, concern and necessity-concerns (NC)-differential scores were associated with patients' adherence (MARS-5) scores. B (95% CI) coefficients were 0.057 (0.035-0.079), -0.040 (-0.064 to -0.016) and.061 (0.043-0.079). CONCLUSIONS: Patients have stronger beliefs about medication compared to HCPs. No associations were found between HCPs' BMQ scores on the one hand and patients' BMQ scores and adherence to statins on the other hand.

Contains fulltext : 218099.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of medication review on the number of drug-related problems (DRPs) in outpatient cardiology patients. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, a computer-assisted and pharmacist-led medication review with patient involvement (questionnaire and telephone call with pharmacist) was conducted in intervention patients prior to their visit to the cardiologist. The control group received usual care. Adult outpatient cardiology patients without support concerning the administration of medication, without a medication review in the past 6 months and who gave permission to access their electronic medication record were included. The primary outcome measure was the number of DRPs 1 month after the visit. Secondary outcome measures concerned the type of DRP and the type of medication involved in the DRPs. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients (mean [standard deviation, SD] age 66.0 [12.5] years, 41% female) were included. Intervention (n = 90) and control group (n = 85) were comparable at baseline. The mean (SD) number of drugs used per patient was 7.9 (3.9). After 1 month, the mean (SD) number of DRPs was 0.3 (0.7) and 0.8 (1.0) and the median (range) number of DRPs was 0 (0-4) and 0 (0-4) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (P < .001). In the intervention group, 74% of the DRPs identified at T0 were solved at T1 vs 14% in the control group. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial suggests that a pharmacist-led medication review in patients with a scheduled visit to the outpatient cardiology clinic decreases the number of DRPs.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 195286.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 173181.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Medication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used. METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality

Item does not contain fulltext